does the entire unit have to be within 6 to gain the cover save, just one guy, 50% of the unit or something else?

Just 1 Guy.
Same for Storm Caller, orders or anything else that needs the Unit to be X" from something.

If it said "The ENTIRE unit must be within 6"", then it would need all the models. But it doesn't, so it only needs 1 Guy or 1 Planck Length of hull within 6"

thanks gwar.
this is what i thought but i wanted to run it by you guys.

usernamesareannoying wrote:thanks gwar.
this is what i thought but i wanted to run it by you guys.

I don't have my book handy, but I believe only vehicles actually within 6" get the obscured bonus. Worth noting for squadrons and such if so.

Gorkamorka wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:thanks gwar.
this is what i thought but i wanted to run it by you guys.

I don't have my book handy, but I believe only vehicles actually within 6" get the obscured bonus. Worth noting for squadrons and such if so.

Actually, for Squadrons, if 50% of the Squadron is obscured (either by terrain or wargear), the whole squadron gets the save.

Page 64 wrote:Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), and then the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not.

Page 22 wrote:If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves.

Gwar! wrote:Actually, for Squadrons, if 50% of the Squadron is obscured (either by terrain or wargear), the whole squadron gets the save.

Yes, but if only say... 1 of 3 vehicles in a squadron is within the KFF then the squadron doesn't get the bonus. Which is the opposite of how it works on infantry, so I figured it was worth mentioning.

However as they are still a UNIT they would get the 5+ cover save.

Quite neat....

nosferatu1001 wrote:However as they are still a UNIT they would get the 5+ cover save.

Quite neat....

Yup, because squadrons count as a unit

So you get a 5+ save instead of a 4+ save

Which is neatly what you get when you can't quite tell if 50% of a unit is in cover...which if a shiummering forcefield is covering a couple of models you probably would question it

nosferatu1001 wrote:However as they are still a UNIT they would get the 5+ cover save.

Quite neat....

And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Maybe I'm not in the majority here, but I think this is a case where, if you want to say that the "vehicles count as obscured" statement is entirely seperate to the 5+ cover save statement (meaning obscured vehicles get a 4+ cover save from it) then vehicles shouldn't be trying to claim a cover save from the bit of the rule that doesn't apply to them.

Units always get the bet save available, iirc.

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Actually, vehicles that are obscured get the save of whatever is obscuring them.

pg. 62 "...(for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on)."

It goes on to say, "If a special rule of piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured... this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex."

The KFF specifies 5+ right, so it would be 5+ not 4+.

But the 5+ save isn't obscuring them. If it did not mention that vehicles count as obscured, then the save would be 5+ for vehicles. Because it is mentioned separately, it is assumed to be 4+ for vehicles, and the codex does not say to make this obscured save a 5+.

Yeah, it's a 4+. They're said to be obscured targets, not obscured targets with a 5+ cover save.

Drunkspleen - essentially any vehicle would get BOTH a 5+ and a 4+ cover save, but be "forced" to take the 4+ at all times it is applicable.

The two sentences are entirely seperate, and the "obscured" sentence in no way shape or form refers to the 5+ save initially given. Yes, this is a case whre Orks get to have their cake and eat it, too.

Ah, ok, that's not the way my LGS interprets the obscured status. We do a check list style interpretation:

1) Is it obscured? (yes/no)
2) By what? (ruin, other vehicle, wargear, ect.)
3) What's its save? (4+,5+,3+, not specifed [so 4+])

For the KFF specifically, the players agree the wargear's save is 5+ so they convey it to the vehicle in that aspect.

I know this may be different, but the checklist style game play prevents a lot of disagreements.

As usual, YMMV.

After re-reading the rules, I have to say that if a KFF gives a 5+ cover save, and obscures... it would seem to me that it would give a 5+ obscured saved. The fact that it was mentioned was probably to clarify the fact that even though the shield is invisible, it still covers 50% of a vehicles, and gives obscured.

The idea that it gives a 4+ save because the rulebook didn't state specifically that the 5+ coversave given by the KFF applies to vehicles too is absurd. It is a 5+ save, thus it confers a 5+ save when it obscures too. Because it was specifically stated that the KFF gives a 5+ save... it does not get to take advantage of the it's a 4+ save because its wargear. It was, in fact, stated it is a 5+ save... so there it is.

After looking at the Ork FAQ, I am surprised this hasn't been FAQ'd

Lt Lathrop wrote:After looking at the Ork FAQ, I am surprised this hasn't been FAQ'd

I could understand your reaction if you were talking about the INAT FAQs, but the GW FAQs? Really?

Lt Lathrop - sorry, you are entirely wrong on this. Even the "5th ed prep" sheets mentioned that KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles.

You are told, specificlaly in the rulebook, that "obscured" is a 4+ save unless told otherwise. NOWHERE in the KFF rule does it state that the 5+ save conferred in the first sentence applies to the "obscured" status given in the second sentence. Nothing.

The two sentences are entirely seperate, and do not have any links between them whatsoever. You can only say the save is a 5+ if you have no idea of how the Enlgish language works.

Mek KFF:
A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek
a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as
being obscured targets.

BRB obscured:
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a
vehicle the ability of being obscured even if in the
open, this is a 4+ cover save, unless specified otherwise
in the Codex.

The KFF simply grants obscured, separate from the 5+ cover it gives to infantry. Unspecified obscured wargear = 4+

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lt Lathrop - sorry, you are entirely wrong on this. Even the "5th ed prep" sheets mentioned that KFF gives a 4+ cover save to vehicles.

You are told, specificlaly in the rulebook, that "obscured" is a 4+ save unless told otherwise. NOWHERE in the KFF rule does it state that the 5+ save conferred in the first sentence applies to the "obscured" status given in the second sentence. Nothing.

The two sentences are entirely seperate, and do not have any links between them whatsoever. You can only say the save is a 5+ if you have no idea of how the Enlgish language works.

My interpretation has nothing to do with the entry in the Orks Codex being two separate statements. It has everything to do with the rule that if the save is not specified, then it is a 4+ as it is granted by wargear. It is just as easy to interpret the rule in the Ork Codex as having been 4+ because it was not specifically stated it was also a 5+ cover save, because it was intended to be a 4+ cover save, or that it is a 5+ cover save because the KFF confers 5+ cover... and restating that it confers 5+ cover ALSO to obscured would have been redundant, or just as easy to say that it was a leftover from 4th ed when obscured didn't give cover saves but something completely different... thus not needing any specific clarifications one way or the other... and that it should have been FAQ'd when it was moved to 5th edition where the obscured status did something completely different.

Next time you want to argue my workings of the English language, maybe you should focus on the rules we are discussing and possibly your spelling of the word "Enlgish" while you are at it. (Unless you actually meant Enlgish, in which case I apologize... but I don't speak that. Lol.)

By the lack of logic posted, a unit behind a chain fence (6+cover save) and wall (4+ cover save) has to take the 6+ because the fence was agreed to be 6+? umm no?

Best save = best chance to live on the roll.

If both 5+(kff) and 4+(obscured from anything, including kff) can be applied, the 4+(best) is used.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:By the lack of logic posted, a unit behind a chain fence (6+cover save) and wall (4+ cover save) has to take the 6+ because the fence was agreed to be 6+? umm no?

Best save = best chance to live on the roll.

If both 5+(kff) and 4+(obscured from anything, including kff) can be applied, the 4+(best) is used.

/shrug

That isn't what Lathrop and the others are arguing.
You don't get a 4+ save from being obscured by anything, only from things that would normally grant 4+ cover and wargear that doesn't have a value specified. (pg62)
He's arguing that the 5+ cover granted by the kff to units IS specifying its value and should be used for the vehicle obscuring save.

I still firmly believe the generic 'obscured' it grants to vehicles wouldn't use the unrelated cover # from the previous sentence, but I can see where they are coming from.

Since vehicles are units, and the KFF gives a 5+ save to units...

I think I've been playing this wrong. I think it's a 5+ save for vehicles.

Bah.

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Yes, all I was saying is, if you want them to be considered entirely seperate statements (which you clearly do, not necessarily for your own benefit, but simply because that is what you think the rules say) then I believe the second statement that vehicles are obscured overrides the first statement that units get a cover save. I can see how the RAW does support a squadron getting a 5+ cover save if only 1 vehicle (of 3) is in range of a KFF, but I feel the more specific rules for vehicles mean the broader rules aren't applied.

Ordznik wrote:Since vehicles are units, and the KFF gives a 5+ save to units...

I think I've been playing this wrong. I think it's a 5+ save for vehicles.

Bah.

It's a 5+ save AND a 4+ save for squadrons.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Yes, all I was saying is, if you want them to be considered entirely seperate statements (which you clearly do, not necessarily for your own benefit, but simply because that is what you think the rules say) then I believe the second statement that vehicles are obscured overrides the first statement that units get a cover save. I can see how the RAW does support a squadron getting a 5+ cover save if only 1 vehicle (of 3) is in range of a KFF, but I feel the more specific rules for vehicles mean the broader rules aren't applied.

Except that nowhere in the rules, either BRB or the rules for KFF, does it indicate you may only receive a single save. It is an assumption on your part with absolutely no nasis whatsoever in the rules.

You receive both the 5+ save for being a "unit" and the 4+ save for being a vehicle, and therefore must use the best save. Sometimes squadrons may only get the former save, as only some members of the unit may be within 6" to get the improved "vehicle" save.

Lt Lathrop - you still cannot show how, at any point, the 2 sentences contradict / override / link each other such that "obscured" becomes a 5+ save. If you can do so - then please post some evidence of this. Otherwise you have baseless supposition that they are not "supposed" to get a 5+ save as well. This is why I am saying you need to have a flawed look at the English language, as there is no way, under its current construction, that the two sentences can be said to be linked to eachother.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:And since the KFF specifies that they get a 5+ cover save, no vehicles would ever be entitled to a 4+ save for being obscured, only a 5+ save.

Nope, sorry. It says "Vehicles count as Obscured", not "Vehicles count as obscured with a 5+ save". So they have a 4+ save.

Yes, all I was saying is, if you want them to be considered entirely seperate statements (which you clearly do, not necessarily for your own benefit, but simply because that is what you think the rules say) then I believe the second statement that vehicles are obscured overrides the first statement that units get a cover save. I can see how the RAW does support a squadron getting a 5+ cover save if only 1 vehicle (of 3) is in range of a KFF, but I feel the more specific rules for vehicles mean the broader rules aren't applied.

Except that nowhere in the rules, either BRB or the rules for KFF, does it indicate you may only receive a single save. It is an assumption on your part with absolutely no nasis whatsoever in the rules.

You receive both the 5+ save for being a "unit" and the 4+ save for being a vehicle, and therefore must use the best save. Sometimes squadrons may only get the former save, as only some members of the unit may be within 6" to get the improved "vehicle" save.

Lt Lathrop - you still cannot show how, at any point, the 2 sentences contradict / override / link each other such that "obscured" becomes a 5+ save. If you can do so - then please post some evidence of this. Otherwise you have baseless supposition that they are not "supposed" to get a 5+ save as well. This is why I am saying you need to have a flawed look at the English language, as there is no way, under its current construction, that the two sentences can be said to be linked to eachother.

Wait-are you seriously saying that there's no way two consecutive sentences could possibly be linked? Even if only because of their proximity? Or the fact that they're in the same paragraph?

Think about it for a second.

Ordznik wrote:

Lots of People wrote:Stuff.

Wait-are you seriously saying that there's no way two consecutive sentences could possibly be linked? Even if only because of their proximity? Or the fact that they're in the same paragraph?

Think about it for a second.

+1

Not in this case no - a sentence is a self contained structure UNLESS it has language linking it to a previous sentence. There is *no such language here* - or if there is you could maybe point it out?

Lt Lathrop - love the "+1" but until you can show something in the language of the sentences that unambiguously links the two together, ie that the obscured save is a 5+, it is a little superfluous. Could you please indicate how the two, seperate sentences that do not link together, do in fact link together?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not in this case no - a sentence is a self contained structure UNLESS it has language linking it to a previous sentence. There is *no such language here* - or if there is you could maybe point it out?

Lt Lathrop - love the "+1" but until you can show something in the language of the sentences that unambiguously links the two together, ie that the obscured save is a 5+, it is a little superfluous. Could you please indicate how the two, seperate sentences that do not link together, do in fact link together?

They are linked in the same way any set of statements regarding the same thing are linked.

If you are going to argue that the cover save of 5+ is not related to the obscured save... as they are two consecutive sentences and talking about the same wargear... I am going to argue that the obscured save is talking about any vehicles that are within 6" of each other get obscured saves so long that the KFF wargear is taken. It doesn't state it is talking about the proximity to the KFF in that sentence. [sarcasm]So clearly we cannot imply that the 6" was regarding the proximity to the KFF but that it must mean 6" from other vehicles, as that is the only thing mentioned in that sentence... even though it is part of the paragraph regarding the KFF and its interacting and related mechanics. To assume otherwise would be too ambiguous.[/sarcasm]

Except that the OBSCURED sentence does not, in any way, make reference to the save being a 5+. It really doesn't - it is entirely seperate from the first sentence.

I see you can't find any actual language to support your contention, so I will assume it void and move on.

You assert that by a certain way of logic, you were right. Someone challenged your logic, and showed why you would be incorrect... so you restate your original statement which is based on your flawed logic without providing any new reasoning as to why you make sense (which you just demanded of the second party)... then claim that you don't like what the other person said so you are going to ignore it and say you are right?

That makes less sense than what you said before... and has no bearing on the discussion of the rules. Please get back on topic, or stop posting on the matter until you have something new to bring to the debate about the rules regarding the saves offered by the KFF.

nosferatu1001 is correct.
Lt Lathrop is not.

That is all.

OK, here is my $.02 Lt. Lathrop.

I think this is very similar to the Necron sweeping advance question. The sweeping advance rule has similar wording to this rule. In sweeping advance it says, "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue them..." (BRB pg 40). I believe (haven't checked the thread in a while) the consensus was that WBB did not work with this because WBB did not specifically address sweeping advance. However, ATSKNF does. ATSKNF specifically states if they are caught in a sweeping advance, do Y instead (sorry, don't have codex handy for what it actually does).

Now, I think that this is the same. The KFF doesn't specifically state that the obscured save is 5+ only that it is obscured. This could be shodding writing on GW's sake, but that's how the rule is written. I feel that if they wanted the KFF to impart a 5+ save to the vehicle for obscured status, the sentence would have been written "The vehicle counts as obscured and gets a 5+ save instead of the normal 4+"

I understand where you are coming from with your argument, and honestly until I picked up my rulebook and read the sweeping advance rule, I thought that your interpretation was right. However, I think in light of how sweeping advance and "specifically" works, that the 4+ is correct.

Lt Lathrop wrote:You assert that by a certain way of logic, you were right. Someone challenged your logic, and showed why you would be incorrect... so you restate your original statement which is based on your flawed logic without providing any new reasoning as to why you make sense (which you just demanded of the second party)... then claim that you don't like what the other person said so you are going to ignore it and say you are right?

That makes less sense than what you said before... and has no bearing on the discussion of the rules. Please get back on topic, or stop posting on the matter until you have something new to bring to the debate about the rules regarding the saves offered by the KFF.

Huh?

I've yet to see any actual rules showing the "obscured" save is a 5+, or that vehicles don't get both saves by virtue of being both units and vehicles. If you can actually show some language to supprot your position, please do so. Noone has shown my logic to be incorrect - just said that sentences can be linked. Which they can be, but it requires you know, the actual words used to create that linkage - wording whcih is remarkably absent in the Ork Codex.

All you have said so far is "the two sentences are next to each other so must be linked" - to paraphrase - which is not exactly a great argument. Frankly its an awful one, but despite being asked repeatedly you have yet to provide any evidence to supprot your supposition.

Please, if you do have any evidence that shows the two are linked, or that the first cover save granted to all units should be ignored, then please do so. Otherwise the only reasonable assumption to be made is that your argument is invalid, as it has no basis in the BRB or Ork rules.

Zatchmo - given GW specifically cited the 4+ save as a change for 5th ed, in the 5th ed preview sheets, we have both Intention AND actual Written rules that show the save is 4+. It can only be contested if you can somehow link the two sentences - which Lt Lathrop has failed utterly to do.

If the two sentences are completely unrelated, then please explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

If the answer is that the sentence is under the KFF rules, then you are linking them both by being under the KFF rules. The sentence "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." cannot stand alone and still function. It order for it to have any bearing on the rules, it must be linked in some fashion to the KFF. If you still insist the sentence are not linked in any fashion, then explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

Also, as stated earlier, being obscured does not automatically grant a 4+ save as dictated on pg. 62. If a vehicle is being obscured, it must be known what is obscuring the vehicle. Then it must be known what that obscuring object's save is (specified/unspecified). KFF is specified at 5+, as an example, disruption pods for Tau have no specification. The same logic is applied to all other obscured status:

Vehicle obscured by hedge. Hedge save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Ignoring the specified save for the KFF is the same logic that ignores any specified save for being obscured. A specified save cannot be ignored simply because they are not in the same sentence. The link for saves can be connected across books without them even being in the same section, much less directly next to each other.

If linking sentences in the same rule, the same subsection-section, directly referring to the same piece of wargear is difficult to do, then I can't imagine trying to link any codex with the main rulebook, or even any section of the rulebook to any other section, as sentence cannot be easily linked, then whole books must be impossible,

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

To answer the OP's question, the KFF renders vehicles obscure which, according to the rules, provides a 4+ cover save. Other units receive a 5+ cover save as the wargear description explains and only one model in the unit need be within 6".

Gwar! wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

can you take 2 cover saves?

Omega_Warlord wrote:If the two sentences are completely unrelated, then please explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

If the answer is that the sentence is under the KFF rules, then you are linking them both by being under the KFF rules. The sentence "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." cannot stand alone and still function. It order for it to have any bearing on the rules, it must be linked in some fashion to the KFF. If you still insist the sentence are not linked in any fashion, then explain to me how KFF works for vehicles at all.

It actually stands alone and functions just fine, as it is under the KFF heading making it a generic obscured granted by a piece of wargear which the obscured rules have rules for.

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

can you take 2 cover saves?

No, you cannot TAKE two coversaves, but you can get coversaves from two different sources. You just have to pick one of them to use.
A similar situation occurs when a unit of Guardians with a Conceal Warlock enters a piece of area terrain. Two saves, pick one.

Steelmage99 wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:Vehicle is obscured by KFF. KFF save is 5+. Vehicle save is 5+.

Wrong.

Vehicle is Obscured by the KFF. The Obscured save is not specified, so it is a 4+.

It ALSO has a 5+ cover save for being a unit.

can you take 2 cover saves?

No, you cannot TAKE two coversaves, but you can get coversaves from two different sources. You just have to pick one of them to use.
A similar situation occurs when a unit of Guardians with a Conceal Warlock enters a piece of area terrain. Two saves, pick one.

thats what i thought, thanks steel. i didnt get the argument over it being a 4+ obscured cover save as well as a 5+ KFF save.

Omega_Warlord wrote:----Stuff-----

Nope. There is NO specific save for "obscured" as the sentence creates no dependencies on the previous sentence. Nothing about the sentence does this - despite you being asked to show this connection (btw, "proximity" is rather weak, as already explained to you twice now) you have utterly failed to do so. You made an assumption that proximity means there is a cnonection, but the rules of the English language dictate that is not a sufficient condition.

THe save is from wargear (As it is under the KFF sentence, which indicates all rules beneath relate to the Wargear item "KFF") and is not specified, therefore as the actual rules in the BRB state you get a 4+ save. GW even stated this when they were releasing 5th ed - they did a sneak preview fact sheet whcih talked about some of the key changes, one of them being that Ork vehicles get a 4+ save.

Vehicles are a unit, and get a 5+ save. Vehicles are also a "vehicle" and get Obscured, which defaults to a 4+ save if the wargear does not specify any other type of cover save.

So now that I've through and been thoroughly convinced I haven't been using the wrong save on vehicles, is there some kind of vulnerability here to vehicles in squadrons?

Say there are 3 Killer Kans in a unit, but only 1 is within 6" of the shield. Do they benefit only from the 5+ save? Or do they get the 4+? (I always thought since they are a unit they would get the 4+, but certain replies have made me doubt...)

-Fool Whip

This has already been mentioned - it specifically states a VEHICLE, not a squadron, has to be within 6".

As the squadron is a unit, one vehicle within 6" would be enough to give them the 5+ save - no issue there.

However to get the specific Obscured status you must be within 6", meaning some members of the squadron may benefit while others dont.

You then invoke the rules for determinnig the cover save of a unit - count the models with each type of cover. If you have a simple majority (50% or more) of the unit with the 4+ cover save, the entire unit gets it. If you don't the unit only recieves the 5+ save.

As I said 0 it neatly gives you the exact save you would get if you are unsure how many are in cover....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Omega_Warlord wrote:----Stuff-----

Nope. There is NO specific save for "obscured" as the sentence creates no dependencies on the previous sentence. Nothing about the sentence does this - despite you being asked to show this connection (btw, "proximity" is rather weak, as already explained to you twice now) you have utterly failed to do so. You made an assumption that proximity means there is a cnonection, but the rules of the English language dictate that is not a sufficient condition.

THe save is from wargear (As it is under the KFF sentence, which indicates all rules beneath relate to the Wargear item "KFF") and is not specified, therefore as the actual rules in the BRB state you get a 4+ save. GW even stated this when they were releasing 5th ed - they did a sneak preview fact sheet whcih talked about some of the key changes, one of them being that Ork vehicles get a 4+ save.

Vehicles are a unit, and get a 5+ save. Vehicles are also a "vehicle" and get Obscured, which defaults to a 4+ save if the wargear does not specify any other type of cover save.

Nosferatu, compadre, you're killing me here. Absolutely slaying me. I'm already bleeding out of my ears, and soon the blood will be replaced by what little brain matter remains after years of inhaling paints and superglue (strictly for hobby purposes! I swear!).

The meaning of paragraphs-the very essence of the purpose they serve in the English language-is to link sentences together, and provide a logical order for each sentence to expound upon the idea that the paragraph has been created to explore. There is no need for explicit language linking the two sentences. The fact that they are within the same paragraph means, inherently, that they are connected.

We can certainly disagree as to what each of them means in relation to that idea (in this case the save provided by a KFF), as in fact we do. I believe that the sentence containing the 5+ save is meant to refer to both the save granted to infantry, and the save granted to vehicles-note that the sentence refers to "units", which covers both. You believe that the two sentences are intended to be parallel, each referring to an entirely different property of the KFF. That's fine.

But you cannot say that two sequential sentences in the same paragraph are not connected. It's not just pedantry, it's errant, incorrect pedantry.

You guys might be missing something here, I too have wondered about vehicles being obscured giving a 4+, as stated in the Rulebook, from the KFF. I have always rationalized it as a 5+ invul. save to the vehicle, and a obscured save which is a 4+ cover save. The Cover save can be taken away or reduced, we all know the ways to do this, but the invul. is almost immovable.

I talked this up with a few people and seem that the language would warrant that interpretation.

Don't forget that the 6" is from where the Big mek is inside the vehicle and not the edge of the vehicle. I believe that is in the FAQ

Fine - if you "believe" they are connected, please show some connection within the language of the sentences?

The purpose of paragraphs is to contain sentences which are on the same topic or train of thought, but that does not mean that each sentence HAS to refer to (and rely upon ) the preceding one. You do know what "sufficient condition" means don't you? Well being in a paragraph is NOT a sufficient condition for all sentences to be linked together in the way that is required in the rulebook.

Something like "this means that the Vehicle counts as obscured" would do - it would link it to the first and indicate that it is a 5+. But there is no such language, and the two sentences are written such that they can be entirely removed from each other *and no change in meaning would occur* - this alone tells you they cannot be dependent sentences.

GW produced a document, just before 5th ed was released, which stated with NO ambiguity that the save is a 4+ - they madfe a big deal of it. So I have both actual written rules and the intention of the writers of the rules. You have....your beliefs. Which you are entitled to, it just doesn't make them in any way shape or form "correct".

Gold Tooth Gerry - no, the range is from the edge of the vehicle. Units inside a vehicle ahve no physical presence, therefore you read the rulebook that tells you to measure all ranges to abilitiies or wargear from the hull of the vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fine - if you "believe" they are connected, please show some connection within the language of the sentences?

The purpose of paragraphs is to contain sentences which are on the same topic or train of thought, but that does not mean that each sentence HAS to refer to (and rely upon ) the preceding one. You do know what "sufficient condition" means don't you? Well being in a paragraph is NOT a sufficient condition for all sentences to be linked together in the way that is required in the rulebook.

Something like "this means that the Vehicle counts as obscured" would do - it would link it to the first and indicate that it is a 5+. But there is no such language, and the two sentences are written such that they can be entirely removed from each other *and no change in meaning would occur* - this alone tells you they cannot be dependent sentences.

GW produced a document, just before 5th ed was released, which stated with NO ambiguity that the save is a 4+ - they madfe a big deal of it. So I have both actual written rules and the intention of the writers of the rules. You have....your beliefs. Which you are entitled to, it just doesn't make them in any way shape or form "correct".

Look, several people have already tried to explain this to you. As I also have several times. The sentences are linked because they are in the same paragraph, right after the other, refering to the same piece of wargear... that has a given set of effects, which they are explaining.

Like I said before, if you are going to argue that you need to have specific language that relates one sentence to another, in this case that the 5+ cover save given to troops would also imply that the save given by the same piece of wargear would also be a 5+ when it obscures a vehicles; then I am going to argue that you are linking sentences in the same way I am. I already used the example that: the sentence that you say has no language to relate it to other sentences: "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." would, by your reasoning, mean that if the KFF is taken on the board... any vehicle within 6" of another is treated as being obscured. By your reasoning, that sentence does not refer to any of the other sentences in the paragraph... then it is not refering to the distance between the KFF and the target getting the save... which was stated in the previous sentence. However, if you ARE going to link the two sentences in order for you to be able to read the rule as "Vehicles withing 6" [of the KFF] are treated as obscured targets." then you must also link the sentences in the same manner for what I am saying: "Vehicles witin 6" [of the KFF] are treated as obscured targets [and are granted the 5+ cover save]." For you to link the sentences and take the parts you want, but then say that the sentences are not linked... even though they obviously are... and even though you are already linking them yourself... is hypocritical and not how we interpret rules.

Furthermore, it was already explained that the rule is a leftover from 4th ed, when obscured did something completely different. Thus there was no need for language clarifying whether the obscured was related to the 5+ save or not. So the rule needs to be FAQ, there is no "intended" way for this to work. It all depends on whether or not you think the cover save given by the KFF is the same cover save given to obscured vehicles. I am simply saying that arguing the 5+ save wouldn't be the same save granted to obscured vehicles is hypocritical, and would be a silly way to interpret the rules. However, I understand that this is the popular way to do it, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to do it that way. If you seriously cannot understand what others and myself are saying, just please drop it... because it has been explained to you, several times, by several people... you either won't understand because you don't want to, or you can't. Please, stop telling people their arguments are wrong/invalid because you can't understand them.

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:You guys might be missing something here, I too have wondered about vehicles being obscured giving a 4+, as stated in the Rulebook, from the KFF. I have always rationalized it as a 5+ invul. save to the vehicle, and a obscured save which is a 4+ cover save. The Cover save can be taken away or reduced, we all know the ways to do this, but the invul. is almost immovable.

I talked this up with a few people and seem that the language would warrant that interpretation.

Don't forget that the 6" is from where the Big mek is inside the vehicle and not the edge of the vehicle. I believe that is in the FAQ

First, there is no FAQ regarding the KFF... so I don't know where you would have gotten that measurement idea. Effects are measured from the hull of the vehicle.

Second, obscured specifically grants a cover save to a vehicle, and the KFF grants a cover save by itself. It is certainly not an Invul save. What we are arguing is whether, by the language given by the rules concerning obscured cover saves given to vehicles and the way the KFF's rules are written... if we should interpret that the statement "Vehicles are obscured targets." should have a 4+ save, because the rulebook says wargear gives a 4+ obscured save unless otherwise mentioned... or if the KFF grants a 5+ save because in the previous sentence, it states that the cover save granted by the KFF is a 5+ save. The argument basically boils down to whether or not you see the two sentences as referring to the KFF.

You can either say that the paragraph referring to the KFF is interrelated, as I said above, and the 5+ coversave applies to vehicles, just like the infantry, as it says obscured saves do in the Core Rulebook.

Or you can say that the sentence stating vehicles are obscured is separate from the 5+ cover given to the infantry, thus granting a 4+ save, as per the rulebook. I argued that this is a foolish way to interpret the rules, because if you are going to take this sentence and say it does have anything to do with the other rules regarding the KFF, then the statement is talking about vehicles being 6" near each other an obscured save, which is clearly not the way it should work... because the sentences are related. The idea you can take parts of rules you like, and leave out parts you don't like is ridiculous.

Lt Lathrop - except for itbeing under the heading "KFF" which means the "within 6"", in context, is within 6" of the item of wargear.

As has already been explained to you *when GW brought 5th ed out they stated KFF gives a 4+ save to vehicles* - so you are totally and utterly wrong on RAI.

On RAW you are still wrong: the obscured sentence can be read without looking at the first sentence, and it does not change its meaning. At all. See now how they arent linked? or do I have to speak slightly slower?

The rule was written such that it would work in both 4th and 5th: in 4th you got glancing hits only, in 5th you get a 4+ save. That is it. Since you are unable to show any language that shows any link between the two sentences, and I can show that the two sentences can be removed from eachother without changing their meaning, obscured is a 4+ save exactly like the rulebook states.

I think i have shown I have understood your "argument" (KFF is 5+ because the two sentences are next to eachother, and because you think it is "silly" that vehicles get a different save) it is jsut that neither is actually a valid argument - as I have expalined to you.

GW stated you are wrong, the rules state you are wrong, and yet I should drop it? Errr, no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lt Lathrop - except for itbeing under the heading "KFF" which means the "within 6"", in context, is within 6" of the item of wargear.

As has already been explained to you *when GW brought 5th ed out they stated KFF gives a 4+ save to vehicles* - so you are totally and utterly wrong on RAI.

The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

As for the GW stated its a 4+ save, show it to me... and I'll believe you. But it if isn't in a rulebook or codex, or a reputable FAQ, it doesn't really matter anyway.

But there is a rules dispute, technically your opinion (and those who agree with you) is just as valid as the people who disagree (me and others). The rules could be interpreted either way, which is why we are talking about the rules. I also never asked you to stop having an opinion but you aren't talking about rules, you are attacking people who disagree with you, which is what I asked you to stop.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But it if isn't in a rulebook

This part made me Laugh. It IS in the rulebook.

Lt Lathrop wrote:The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

I see you haven't even bothered reading the rule you are arguing? Well done! I also have no real idea what you are trying to say with that second sentence, it is complete nonsense....

The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

Notice how at no point do you need the preceding sentence in order to divine exactly how the item works? It's almost as if it is...ta da! self contained. Exactly as has been pointed out to you 3 or 4 (dozen?) times now.

Please, find some wording that links the two - I can show that they work perfectly fine seperated and with no knowledge of the other. Both rules work perfectly fine if you make them into two different sub items, as the meaning changes in neither case. I repeat: your *entire argument* is that because two sentences are next to each other they must be linked. That is a provably false statement.

Lt Lathrop wrote:As for the GW stated its a 4+ save, show it to me... and I'll believe you. But it if isn't in a rulebook or codex, or a reputable FAQ, it doesn't really matter anyway.

It matters from RAI, which is EXACTLY what I said. Reading others posts more carefully really would help. You were trying to claim intention wasn't known, yet at the time of 4th to 5th ed transition GW said you are wrong.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But there is a rules dispute, technically your opinion (and those who agree with you) is just as valid as the people who disagree (me and others). The rules could be interpreted either way, which is why we are talking about the rules. I also never asked you to stop having an opinion but you aren't talking about rules, you are attacking people who disagree with you, which is what I asked you to stop.

No, I have not attacked you - I have attacked your argument for lacking any coherent rules basis, either GW or even the English language (which is always a good fall back when GW fails....)

My argument on this point *is* more valid as I can show a logical argument that removes the validity of your argument from an objective basis: you can show nothing even approaching it. The rulebook agrees, the codex agrees, the English language agrees *and GW even agreed in print*

Unless you can find a rational argument that even starts to debunk these I would suggest not posting further, unless you wish to concede?

Wow, just wow... I thought people read rules before arguing them?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

I see you haven't even bothered reading the rule you are arguing? Well done! I also have no real idea what you are trying to say with that second sentence, it is complete nonsense....

The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

Notice how at no point do you need the preceding sentence in order to divine exactly how the item works? It's almost as if it is...ta da! self contained. Exactly as has been pointed out to you 3 or 4 (dozen?) times now.

Please, find some wording that links the two - I can show that they work perfectly fine seperated and with no knowledge of the other. Both rules work perfectly fine if you make them into two different sub items, as the meaning changes in neither case. I repeat: your *entire argument* is that because two sentences are next to each other they must be linked. That is a provably false statement.

Lt Lathrop wrote:As for the GW stated its a 4+ save, show it to me... and I'll believe you. But it if isn't in a rulebook or codex, or a reputable FAQ, it doesn't really matter anyway.

It matters from RAI, which is EXACTLY what I said. Reading others posts more carefully really would help. You were trying to claim intention wasn't known, yet at the time of 4th to 5th ed transition GW said you are wrong.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But there is a rules dispute, technically your opinion (and those who agree with you) is just as valid as the people who disagree (me and others). The rules could be interpreted either way, which is why we are talking about the rules. I also never asked you to stop having an opinion but you aren't talking about rules, you are attacking people who disagree with you, which is what I asked you to stop.

No, I have not attacked you - I have attacked your argument for lacking any coherent rules basis, either GW or even the English language (which is always a good fall back when GW fails....)

My argument on this point *is* more valid as I can show a logical argument that removes the validity of your argument from an objective basis: you can show nothing even approaching it. The rulebook agrees, the codex agrees, the English language agrees *and GW even agreed in print*

Unless you can find a rational argument that even starts to debunk these I would suggest not posting further, unless you wish to concede?

Your complete misunderstanding of the English language aside (hey look-I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument!), where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Ordznik wrote:Your complete misunderstanding of the English language aside (hey look-I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument!), where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Actually, your facetious tone indicates you are making a personal attack.

*polite cough and stern glare*

A reminder : personal attacks are not allowed on Dakka, if you find yourself getting a bit too heated, stop posting, leave the thread and come back later when things have cooled down. This is the only warning that will be given

Thank you.

Ordznik wrote:...where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Do a search for 40kposmajorchangesflyer_1_1.pdf.

I would attach it, but I believe that is against the forum rulez.

Below the heading "How 5th Edition Affects Each Army", you will find this statement:
"With the updated vehicle rules, Kustom Force Fields will provide Killa Kanz and Deff Dreads with a 4+ cover save."

The way I see this is that the sentences are linked by proximity. However, the statements within the sentences are not necessarily linked. The range requirement is a precedent for the future statements, while the 5+ save is a self-contained statement that does not confer anything onto anything else, therefore it is a 4+ obscured save.

Gwar! wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:But it if isn't in a rulebook

This part made me Laugh. It IS in the rulebook.

I was refering to this reference sheet. Which isn't in the rulebook, or codexes, or GW FAQs which is all we use to discuss rules on YMDC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lt Lathrop wrote:The rule says that units within 6" get 5+ cover, it says nothing about the proximity of having vehicles near the KFF for them to get obscured. If you don't link the sentences, you can't link the KFF mechanics... as such you can't have half the sentence applying because it does, and the other not... because it doesn't.

I see you haven't even bothered reading the rule you are arguing? Well done! I also have no real idea what you are trying to say with that second sentence, it is complete nonsense....

Ok, so here I am thinking it is awful silly for you to be saying I can't read rules... when you aren't getting the rule correct. If you read the Ork rule for the KFF. It states that "Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." This does not state that you have to be within 6" of the KFF, only of something. You can figure out what that sentence is referring to by reading the previous sentence in the KFF paragraph, "A kustom force field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+." Thus you learn that the second sentence would read "Vehicles within 6" [of the Mek] are treated as being obscured targets." But you have to infer that from the other sentence. My argument is that if you are going to infer the "[of the Mek]" then it is equally valid to infer that the obscured save would give "[a cover save of 5+.]" Thus, the way I would read the rule would be: "Vehicles within 6" [of the Mek] are treated as being obscured targets [with a cover save of 5+].

I have no idea how else to explain it to make it more clear. If you honestly don't understand my argument, that's fine, I'll try to make it more clear. If you are disagreeing or playing dumb, at least stop saying other people's opinions are less valid than yours, illogical, or otherwise confronting people instead of the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I have not attacked you - I have attacked your argument for lacking any coherent rules basis, either GW or even the English language (which is always a good fall back when GW fails....)

My argument on this point *is* more valid as I can show a logical argument that removes the validity of your argument from an objective basis: you can show nothing even approaching it. The rulebook agrees, the codex agrees, the English language agrees *and GW even agreed in print*

Unless you can find a rational argument that even starts to debunk these I would suggest not posting further, unless you wish to concede?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The two sentences are entirely seperate, and do not have any links between them whatsoever. You can only say the save is a 5+ if you have no idea of how the Enlgish language works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:See now how they arent linked? or do I have to speak slightly slower?

I am not saying that your arguement is invalid, or that you are an idiot. Only that I have a different interpretation of the RAW. Since you contradict your own statements, I cannot agree that your opinion is more valid. As I am not the only person who's noticed and stated that you are contradicting your own statements... I don't feel like I have made a mistake in thinking so. See my above arguement for a rational arguement. I don't know what more you want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

It's worth noting at this point that there is no such thing as an 'obscured save'

Obscured vehicles take a cover save.


With that in mind, If it weren't for the 5th ed changes document, I would be firmly leaning towards the interp that vehicles only get the 5+ specified by the KFF rules. The rulebook rules for obscured vehicles state that the save is a 4+ unless otherwise specified... and the KFF rules state that the cover save from a KFF is a 5+.

The KFF doesn't list a specific 'obscured save' because there is no such thing. It lists a cover save which applies to all units, and states that vehicles count as obscured because otherwise they wouldn't benefit from the KFF at all, since vehicles don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.


The 5th ed changes document muddies things a little from an intent POV. Either they intended the KFF to grant a 4+ to vehicles or whoever wrote that document was confused.

As it stands, I would probably be playing it as a 5+ for my Orks, but would be happy to go either way for an Ork opponent who disagrees.

Lt Lathrop - you don;t need the previous sentence, because this is all under the heading "Kustom Force Field" which is Wargear.

Therefore, using this little trick called context, the 6" is from the piece of wargear that the model holds. How to determine ranges to models are given elsewhere in the book, so you have your answer. And at no point in time do you need to refer to the previous sentence.

That is why they are not linked.

Also - I;m not entirely certain why you removed from your quote the fact I gave the exact same rules quote as whcih you accused me of now knowing. That is slightly underhanded "debating" techniques there.

Insaniak - it states the cover save for units in general is a 5+, but then has an entirely seperate sentence to talk about Vehicles which never mentions the 5+ save.

If they wanted these to link tpogether they could have simply made it a single sentence, or used a "because" or "therefore" or anything that indicates the two sentences arent seperate. They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+ - which is what the rulebook would require in absentia a linking phrase. As it stands each sentence can be read *without reading or even having knowledge of the existence of the other* and it does not either change the meaning of the sentence nor leave you unable to make a clear conclusion on what the rule is telling you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lt Lathrop - you don;t need the previous sentence, because this is all under the heading "Kustom Force Field" which is Wargear.

Therefore, using this little trick called context, the 6" is from the piece of wargear that the model holds.

So... you're making an inference about the line based on its position and context? Obviously 'weak'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If they wanted these to link tpogether they could have simply made it a single sentence, or used a "because" or "therefore" or anything that indicates the two sentences arent seperate. They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+

Or... not, since the codex was written before the new obscuring rules and 'obscured' was entirely different and not related to cover saves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - it states the cover save for units in general is a 5+, but then has an entirely seperate sentence to talk about Vehicles which never mentions the 5+ save.

It doesn't need to mention a cover save specifically for vehicles, because vehicles take the same cover save everyone else does. Stating that the vehicle is obscured simply allows the vehicle to take the cover save that they otherwise would not get.

There is no second type of cove save that applies to vehicles. A cover save is a cover save.

Units get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that units get a cover save. This does not in itself apply to vehicles because vehicle don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.

Vehicles get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that they count as obscured.

To determine what that cover save is, we look at the relevant rules.
- The rulebook says that the cover save from items of wargear that aren't actually physically obscuring the vehicle is 4+, unless the relevant codex specified otherwise.
- The codex says that the cover save granted by the KFF is 5+.

Since the KFF entry lists a specific cover save value, (or in other words, 'specifies otherwise') that is the value that you use.

As it stands each sentence can be read *without reading or even having knowledge of the existence of the other*

It can indeed. That's called 'taking a statement out of context' and is one of the biggest traps in RAW discussions.

You can't simply lift a single sentence out of its home paragraph. It has to be considered within the cotext of the entire textas context can have a significant effect on the meaning of a given statement.

Edited for clarity...

insaniak wrote:
To determine what that cover save is, we look at the relevant rules.
- The rulebook says that the cover save from items of wargear that aren't actually physically obscuring the vehicle is 4+, unless the relevant codex specified otherwise.
- The codex says that the cover save granted by the KFF is 5+.

Since the KFF entry lists a specific cover save value, (or in other words, 'specifies otherwise') that is the value that you use.

This is not what the rulebook actually means. The rule for obscured vehicles says that a piece of wargear that is not physically obscuring the model gets a 4+ save unless otherwise specified. The thing is, it doesn't specify otherwise. The 5+ is a save that can be taken exactly the same as if the vehicle is obscured. Even though the two sentences are linked, you have yet to show that the phrases are linked, as I said earlier. Funny that you ignored that argument.

thebetter1 wrote: The 5+ is a save that can be taken exactly the same as if the vehicle is obscured.

If the vehicle is not obscured, it doesn't get a cover save.

Check page 62 of the rulebook, "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets"... Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as other models. They have to be obscured in order to get a cover save.

So despite the fact that the KFF states that it grants a cover save to 'units' the only reason that vehicles get to take this save is because the KFF rules also state that vehicles count as obscured.

The KFF save isn't an additional save on top of the save for being obscured. It is the save for being obscured, because being obscured is what allows the vehicle to take the save in the first place.

Even though the two sentences are linked, you have yet to show that the phrases are linked, as I said earlier. Funny that you ignored that argument.

No, I've shown how they're linked: Vehicles only get a cover save if they're obscured. So the second statement is what allows the first to apply to vehicles.

Insaniak - Except that the codex does not specify the cover save in relation to obscured vehicles. It states a cover save for units, and then specifies that vehicles are to be treated differently - and nowhere in *that* sentence does it define a save. See the WBB vs SA argumement - this shows you exactly what is meant by "specified" and KFF does *not* specify the cover save that vehicles will recieve as a result of being Obscured.

Gorkamorka - yes, I am aware of that - as you well know. So an (unintended? the newsletter suggests not) consequence of writing a codex that works both in 4th and 5th is that you are forced to write rules in a certain way. So they were forced to not linkt he two statements together, as this would not have worked in 4th.

Neatly disproven your own argument.

Also look at Ghazghull whos rules for Adamantium Skull did not work *at all* in 4th. Waagh being called "a waagh move" as they could not state "run" as it did not yet exist.

Re: position. Using something under a *heading* to conclude that the sentence refers to the item in the *heading* is not weak - it is how all the rules are written in the rulebook. Stating that two sentences *mu8st* be linked because they are next to eachother IS weak. As I said: one is a sufficient condition the other is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - Except that the codex does not specify the cover save in relation to obscured vehicles. It states a cover save for units, and then specifies that vehicles are to be treated differently - and nowhere in *that* sentence does it define a save.

The statement about being obscured does not refer to treating vehicles differently. Being obscured grants vehicles a cover save that they otherwise would not have. So what that statement is doing is ensuring that vehicles are treated the same as other units.

Without that statement they would be treated differently, as they would not get a cover save.


As has been pointed out, the statement about being obscured couldn't mention a save, because in 4th edition (when the codex was released) being obscured didn't grant a save. It downgraded a Penetrating hit to a Glancing one.

But it doesn't need to define the save again. We've already been told in the immediately preceeding statement that the KFF grants a 5+ save. All that second statement is for is to grant obscurity to the vehicle, which gives it access to that save.

And again I ask you to look at how Sweeping Advance considers "specific"

- ATSKNF works against SA because it specifically mentions the rule SA and what happens if SA affects the unit.

- WBB does *not* work against SA because, despite it alluding it should always work against anything (whenever models are removed....etc) it does not specifically mention if it works against SA.

Here we have 2 seperate sentences: the second sentence deals with giving the vehicle the ability to take a cover save, and nowheer in this sentence, or any indication of a link to the prior sentence, does it *specify* the save granted to vehicles in a way that would be consistent with other uses of "specify"in the book. No save has therefore been specified, so you fall back to the default as per the BRB.

As you mentioned, vehicles cant normally take cover saves - so the line about "units receive a 5+" *cannot* apply to the line dealing with vehicles.

I already pointed out that a (not unintended, if you read the changes pdf) consequence of not being able to specify a save in the Obscured sentence *must mean* the save is a 4+, as the save has *not been specified* and indeed could not be. Same as a Waagh move is defined only implictly as no explciit definiiton would have survived the transition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Gorkamorka - yes, I am aware of that - as you well know. So an (unintended? the newsletter suggests not) consequence of writing a codex that works both in 4th and 5th is that you are forced to write rules in a certain way. So they were forced to not linkt he two statements together, as this would not have worked in 4th.

Neatly disproven your own argument.

Wait... what?
"They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+"
"(No), since the codex was written before the new obscuring rules."
"I know! That proves you wrong!"

I corrected a nonsensical argument on your part that they could have written the codex to refer to rules that didn't exist.
How does you agreeing that it was impossible prove me wrong about anything?

Your argument is that they cannot specify a save within the Obscured sentence, as it would not have functioned in 4th.

This is provably false, as they wrote other rules that did not function in 4th (seriously, can you read my posts so i dont have to repeat myself to you? Ghazghull had rules the did not work in 4th, Adamantium Skull and S&P interactions) however, for now, we will assume it is true in this case. This is *your premise* remember, not mine.

The *direct result of this* assumption is that the sentence *must* be standalone as it CANNOT REFER to the cover save sentence - if it did it would not work in 4th (as vehicles could not use cover saves), and your premise is the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th.

So you did, by making the assumption (again, provably false) that in all cases the rules were written to "work" in 4th and 5th, disprove your argument about the cover save being specified for Obscured.

Understand now? I'll reqord it in an even simpler format: By assuming the rules worked well in 4th, you cannot therefore have the two sentences linked together, meaning the save cannot be specified.

BTW: it was not a "nonsensical argument" as I have already given you one example where they wrote a rule which did not exist in 4th: the ability for a S&P model to gain a bonus attack for charging. Quite amusingly in your selective reading you missed the example I had already posted. Nice going btw. If you want to put words in other peoples mouths (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find out which debating fallacy that is) it would probably help to read their posts first.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The *direct result of this* assumption is that the sentence *must* be standalone as it CANNOT REFER to the cover save sentence - if it did it would not work in 4th (as vehicles could not use cover saves), and your premise is the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th.

So you did, by making the assumption (again, provably false) that in all cases the rules were written to "work" in 4th and 5th, disprove your argument about the cover save being specified for Obscured.

...wait what?
Where was my premise that the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th?
Where did I ever support the assertion that the cover save was specified, other than to clarify a misreading of the argument?
Why are you complaining about peoples reading comprehension when you continually misquote people and are apparently intentionally misreading their arguments? I'm not seeing these points you claim I'm making in my posts at all.

If the cover save is not specified, then are you saying that vehicles get a 4+ save? Anything else would be making up rules.

The final sentence in post at 2009/11/04 01:20:46 talks about them not being able to talk about cover saves as this was written in the previous edition - you are therefore postulating they wrote the rules to work equally well in 4th and 5th, otherwise what you posted was meaningless.

I also showed that your argument that they could not have written rules that did not work was nonsensical, and had previously given you the exact example that showed this. You chose to ignore this, or you didnt bother to read it and connect it to your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your argument is that they cannot specify a save within the Obscured sentence, as it would not have functioned in 4th.

This is provably false, as they wrote other rules that did not function in 4th (seriously, can you read my posts so i dont have to repeat myself to you? Ghazghull had rules the did not work in 4th, Adamantium Skull and S&P interactions) however, for now, we will assume it is true in this case. This is *your premise* remember, not mine.

The *direct result of this* assumption is that the sentence *must* be standalone as it CANNOT REFER to the cover save sentence - if it did it would not work in 4th (as vehicles could not use cover saves), and your premise is the rules were written to work equally well in 4th and 5th.

So you did, by making the assumption (again, provably false) that in all cases the rules were written to "work" in 4th and 5th, disprove your argument about the cover save being specified for Obscured.

Understand now? I'll reqord it in an even simpler format: By assuming the rules worked well in 4th, you cannot therefore have the two sentences linked together, meaning the save cannot be specified.

BTW: it was not a "nonsensical argument" as I have already given you one example where they wrote a rule which did not exist in 4th: the ability for a S&P model to gain a bonus attack for charging. Quite amusingly in your selective reading you missed the example I had already posted. Nice going btw. If you want to put words in other peoples mouths (I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find out which debating fallacy that is) it would probably help to read their posts first.

I know I've been going back and forth with you so I might not be the most impartial 3rd party, but I just want to jump in here and inform you that Gorkamorka stated that you didn't make any sense... you then agreed with him that you made no sense, and used the reasoning that you made no sense to make a completely unrelated point which had nothing to do with what Gorka said. You when Gorka corrected you, you claimed he wasn't reading your posts... which is crazy... because you didn't read his... or yours, apparently.

Ironically enough, Gorka said he thinks the KFF gives a 4+ obscured save... but is arguing with you now because what you've been saying doesn't make any sense. Which you would know if you had been reading his posts... lol.

Gorkamorka postulated that they could not write a rule that would not work in 4th ed, and I showed that was a flawed argument.

I then showed the consequence of making the assumption that they did write rules that worked equally well in 4th and 5th by showing this proved that the save cannot be linked to the unit save.

Still waiting on your responses - if you could explain why you removed from my quoted post the rule you claimed I had not read? It owuld be interesting to know why.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The final sentence in post at 2009/11/04 01:20:46 talks about them not being able to talk about cover saves as this was written in the previous edition - you are therefore postulating they wrote the rules to work equally well in 4th and 5th, otherwise what you posted was meaningless.

I also showed that your argument that they could not have written rules that did not work was nonsensical, and had previously given you the exact example that showed this. You chose to ignore this, or you didnt bother to read it and connect it to your argument.

...wait what?

In 4th edition, obscured had nothing to do with granting a cover save. Saying that 'they could have written in a specific 5+ save' as an argument makes no sense, as it has nothing to do with the rules at the time and would have made no sense in the codex at all. This is entirely separate from their ability to write in rules that are broken. The argument that Ghaz has broken rules has nothing to do with the fact that GW couldn't write in specific rules for effects that didn't exist yet. They didn't have a magical crystal ball that would tell them the final version of the obscured rules early and allow them to write in relevant clauses.

Your argument was "They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+ - which is what the rulebook would require...". I pointed out that this specific argument was completely meritless, I have no idea where you're extrapolating all these claims of mine from.

Large chunks of what you are saying directly to me has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am extremely confused by the words you are putting into my mouth.

Edit: I'd enjoy you specifying where I came out in support of the 5+ save, which you claimed I did without bothering to quote, if you're going to pick on Lathrop's quoting of you. I actually specifically supported the 4+ side of the argument multiple times, I'm just arguing against people who are misreading the other side entirely or making arguments that are baseless.

This makes it very convenient that the fact that this codex was written in 4th edition has no bearing on the rules whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gorkamorka postulated that they could not write a rule that would not work in 4th ed, and I showed that was a flawed argument.

No he didn't. No you didn't; and if that was what you were trying to do... you didn't. And if you did... it doesn't matter... cause that wasn't what he said to begin with. So you failed to argue a point, at something you made up that someone said.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I then showed the consequence of making the assumption that they did write rules that worked equally well in 4th and 5th by showing this proved that the save cannot be linked to the unit save.

I suppose you did. But that has nothing to do with anything anyone has talked about. You are basically arguing some point that you made up... in response to something you made up.

nosferatu1001 is actually spot on. I have yet to see anyone disprove his argument.

Gwar! wrote:nosferatu1001 is actually spot on.

Even the parts where he misquoted me and then argued with himself about points I didn't make?

Gwar! wrote:nosferatu1001 is actually spot on. I have yet to see anyone disprove his argument.

See:

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule specifically staes that "vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets" - meaning that it is a) from a piece of wargear and b) does not define its own "obscured2 save therefore the save is a 4+

It's worth noting at this point that there is no such thing as an 'obscured save'

Obscured vehicles take a cover save.


With that in mind, If it weren't for the 5th ed changes document, I would be firmly leaning towards the interp that vehicles only get the 5+ specified by the KFF rules. The rulebook rules for obscured vehicles state that the save is a 4+ unless otherwise specified... and the KFF rules state that the cover save from a KFF is a 5+.

The KFF doesn't list a specific 'obscured save' because there is no such thing. It lists a cover save which applies to all units, and states that vehicles count as obscured because otherwise they wouldn't benefit from the KFF at all, since vehicles don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.

and,

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - it states the cover save for units in general is a 5+, but then has an entirely seperate sentence to talk about Vehicles which never mentions the 5+ save.

It doesn't need to mention a cover save specifically for vehicles, because vehicles take the same cover save everyone else does. Stating that the vehicle is obscured simply allows the vehicle to take the cover save that they otherwise would not get.

There is no second type of cove save that applies to vehicles. A cover save is a cover save.

Units get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that units get a cover save. This does not in itself apply to vehicles because vehicle don't get cover saves unless they are obscured.

Vehicles get a cover save from the KFF because the KFF entry says that they count as obscured.

To determine what that cover save is, we look at the relevant rules.
- The rulebook says that the cover save from items of wargear that aren't actually physically obscuring the vehicle is 4+, unless the relevant codex specified otherwise.
- The codex says that the cover save granted by the KFF is 5+.

Since the KFF entry lists a specific cover save value, (or in other words, 'specifies otherwise') that is the value that you use.

As it stands each sentence can be read *without reading or even having knowledge of the existence of the other*

It can indeed. That's called 'taking a statement out of context' and is one of the biggest traps in RAW discussions.

You can't simply lift a single sentence out of its home paragraph. It has to be considered within the cotext of the entire textas context can have a significant effect on the meaning of a given statement.

Edited for clarity...

And/or any of the posts I or others made arguing for a 5+ save, ad nauseam.

That argument has been defeated as well, at least how I understand what is going on in this insane topic. The codex specifically says that vehicles count as obscured, and the rulebook does not say that vehicles counting as obscured inherit the cover save that the piece of wargear would give under different circumstances, therefore the save is 4+. This is why you should read all the posts.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And again I ask you to look at how Sweeping Advance considers "specific"

Sweeping advance is a slightly different case, because the wording of the rules in question is different... but the same logic applies to both.

The rule for an Obscured Target hit by special wargear says that the unit receives a 4+ cover save unless otherwise specified.
KFF specifically mentions a 5+ cover save for units in its range. So the Obscured Target rule is over-ridden.

Here we have 2 seperate sentences: the second sentence deals with giving the vehicle the ability to take a cover save, and nowheer in this sentence, or any indication of a link to the prior sentence, does it *specify* the save granted to vehicles in a way that would be consistent with other uses of "specify"in the book.

...because the save was already specified by the sentence immediately preceding.

As you mentioned, vehicles cant normally take cover saves - so the line about "units receive a 5+" *cannot* apply to the line dealing with vehicles.

Why not?

Again, you can't just apply each sentence in a vaccuum. The paragraph lists two rules together: Units receive a 5+ cover save and Vehicles count as obscured.

The two rules are listed together. So there is no reason to not assume that they should work together. Without the second statement, the vehicle would not benefit from the first. But the second statement is there, and so applies to the section as a whole.

This is getting annoying. If people don't start to hear my posts, I might start posting in all caps to make sure you hear me .

The sentence immediately preceding the obscured statement is separate from the obscured statement itself. What is this, the third time I have said this with no response? Even though the sentences are linked, this does not mean that every element of the two sentences must change what all the elements mean.

thebetter1 wrote:This is getting annoying. If people don't start to hear my posts, I might start posting in all caps to make sure you hear me .

You're posting the same point as others are making. There's not much point making multiple posts responding to different people saying the same thing.

The sentence immediately preceding the obscured statement is separate from the obscured statement itself.

Simply stating that they are separate doesn't actually prove anything, sorry. Nor does it make any logical sense. They're in the same paragraph, and dealing with related things.

The rules for Obscured Targets say that the vehicle gets a 4+ save unless otherwise specified.
The rules for KFF specify that units in its area of effect get a 5+ cover save. This applies to vehicles, because the KFF rules also specify that vehicles count as obscured.

So, since a rule for a specific item states that it gives the vehicle a specific save, that over-rides the save awarded by the rules for Obscured Targets... because the rules for Obscured Targets say that's what happens.

@insaniak:

The only problem I have with that line of thinking is why the obscured rules would even mention wargear. By your logic, the only reason that rule exists is if there was a piece of wargear that said, "vehicle is obscured" and that's all. By your logic, there would have to be no cover save listed at all in the entry, because that would override being stated "specifically." I'm very new to 40k, so I honestly don't know if a piece of wargear exists like that, perhaps you could enlighten me (I'm being completely honest, not trying to be snarky)?

zatchmo wrote: By your logic, there would have to be no cover save listed at all in the entry, because that would override being stated "specifically."

That's correct.

I'm very new to 40k, so I honestly don't know if a piece of wargear exists like that, perhaps you could enlighten me (I'm being completely honest, not trying to be snarky)?

Tau Disruption Pods, for one. They simply state that the vehicle counts as obscured if the firer is more than 12" away. So the rulebook rule kicks in, and the vehicle has a 4+ cover save.

[strikethrough]Smoke Launchers would be another (although they do also specifically state that obscured also means 4+ cover).[/strikethrough]

Edit: I guess not smoke launchers because we were looking for wargear that specifically does not mention its save value.

Nope, smoke launchers are a different kettle of fish. There's no issue of codex granting obscured for them...

4th ed codexes have them downgrading Pens to Glances without actually referring to the Obscured rule.
5th ed codexes just refer to the rulebook, which specifically gives them a 4+ cover save.

utan wrote:

Ordznik wrote:...where is this document in which GW agrees with you?

Do a search for 40kposmajorchangesflyer_1_1.pdf.

I would attach it, but I believe that is against the forum rulez.

Below the heading "How 5th Edition Affects Each Army", you will find this statement:
"With the updated vehicle rules, Kustom Force Fields will provide Killa Kanz and Deff Dreads with a 4+ cover save."

Thanks, utan-that's really useful. Not entirely convincing, given how often the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at GW, but exactly what I was looking for.

Ordznik wrote:Thanks, utan-that's really useful. Not entirely convincing, given how often the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at GW, but exactly what I was looking for.

I'm particularly impressed with how that same document keeps referring to true LOS as a change...

Fair enough considering all the conditions there were on it. In 5th edition i can only think of Night Fighting and other "roll to see me" abilities. Even that still requires TLOS.

And OWN UNIT, of course. Trust me to forget that one.

Gorkamorka wrote:...wait what?

In 4th edition, obscured had nothing to do with granting a cover save.

As I have already said 10 or 12 times, so you are repeating this - why now?

Gorkamorka wrote:Saying that 'they could have written in a specific 5+ save' as an argument makes no sense, as it has nothing to do with the rules at the time and would have made no sense in the codex at all.

So you are making the assumption that every rule written in the 4th edition Ork Codex was designed to work in 4th edition as well as 5th, yes? This is the premise you are postulating above.

Gorkamorka wrote: This is entirely separate from their ability to write in rules that are broken. The argument that Ghaz has broken rules has nothing to do with the fact that GW couldn't write in specific rules for effects that didn't exist yet. They didn't have a magical crystal ball that would tell them the final version of the obscured rules early and allow them to write in relevant clauses.

And here you are showing a double standard.

Ghaz had rules for things that did not exist yet - S&P gaining attacks on the charge did not exist until 5th, at all. So you are trying to suggest that they couldn't write rules that look forward to 5th edition as they would not know what the final rules would be, despite the fact that *they did exactly that* - which is why your premise above is *flawed* and provably so. Understand now?

In 4th Ghaz getting two attacks on the charge was NONSENSE as he could not gain any attacks on the charge. So why did they write the rule in this way, when you are making the assumption that only rules which worked in 4th were included in the codex? Does it mean that not all rules worked in 4th edition? So they could, indeed, have written that KFF gave obscured with a save of 5+ if they had wanted to - it would have meant in 4th that the KFF would have functioned less well, but Ghaz functioned less well in 4th as well so why not do so?

Gorkamorka wrote:Your argument was "They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+ - which is what the rulebook would require...". I pointed out that this specific argument was completely meritless, I have no idea where you're extrapolating all these claims of mine from.

Because, as I stated, by stating that argument is nonsense or meritless you are therefore postulating that all the rules written were fully compatible with 4th. Its called "logically extending your statement" - otherwise you cannot say the argument is nonsense. I was showing how a) they could have done exactly that, as they wrote other rules that made no sense in 4th (and required foreknowledge of 5th to work, something you said they couldnt do - another incorrect statement), and b) even assuming all the rules were 4th compatible still means the save must be a 4+, as the two sentences cannot be linked as 4th edition would not have worked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:...wait what?

In 4th edition, obscured had nothing to do with granting a cover save.

As I have already said 10 or 12 times, so you are repeating this - why now?

Probably because you are still misquoting him.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Saying that 'they could have written in a specific 5+ save' as an argument makes no sense, as it has nothing to do with the rules at the time and would have made no sense in the codex at all.

So you are making the assumption that every rule written in the 4th edition Ork Codex was designed to work in 4th edition as well as 5th, yes? This is the premise you are postulating above.

That's actually the exact opposite of what he said, in the quote you just quoted him in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: This is entirely separate from their ability to write in rules that are broken. The argument that Ghaz has broken rules has nothing to do with the fact that GW couldn't write in specific rules for effects that didn't exist yet. They didn't have a magical crystal ball that would tell them the final version of the obscured rules early and allow them to write in relevant clauses.

And here you are showing a double standard.

Ghaz had rules for things that did not exist yet - S&P gaining attacks on the charge did not exist until 5th, at all. So you are trying to suggest that they couldn't write rules that look forward to 5th edition as they would not know what the final rules would be, despite the fact that *they did exactly that* - which is why your premise above is *flawed* and provably so. Understand now?

In 4th Ghaz getting two attacks on the charge was NONSENSE as he could not gain any attacks on the charge. So why did they write the rule in this way, when you are making the assumption that only rules which worked in 4th were included in the codex? Does it mean that not all rules worked in 4th edition? So they could, indeed, have written that KFF gave obscured with a save of 5+ if they had wanted to - it would have meant in 4th that the KFF would have functioned less well, but Ghaz functioned less well in 4th as well so why not do so?

Has nothing to do with what he said, which is why he was saying... it has nothing to do with what he said, in the quote you quoted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Your argument was "They could have have stated the vehicle counts as Obscured with a cover save of 5+ - which is what the rulebook would require...". I pointed out that this specific argument was completely meritless, I have no idea where you're extrapolating all these claims of mine from.

Because, as I stated, by stating that argument is nonsense or meritless you are therefore postulating that all the rules written were fully compatible with 4th. Its called "logically extending your statement" - otherwise you cannot say the argument is nonsense. I was showing how a) they could have done exactly that, as they wrote other rules that made no sense in 4th (and required foreknowledge of 5th to work, something you said they couldnt do - another incorrect statement), and b) even assuming all the rules were 4th compatible still means the save must be a 4+, as the two sentences cannot be linked as 4th edition would not have worked.

If I might try to guess what Gorka was trying to say... I believe he was saying that you make no sense, because half the things you say had/have nothing to do with anything he was saying. And I believe he was saying that your premise that if GW had intended for the Obscured save to be a 5+ they would have written the rule to be more clear, better linking the two sentences. However Gorka says that's nonsense, because GW wouldn't have clarified a rule, written in 4th... for the upcomming 5th ruleset. Which is the same, and agrees with, your argument.

Which leads me to say:

Why you are arguing with Gorka is beyond me, cause he agrees with you that the save granted by the KFF is 4+. He just disagreed with some of the reasonings you gave... and now you are literally just making things up as you go. You quote him, then immediately misinterpret what he says, pretty explicitly, and then make up other things he says... so you can argue with him about them. Where the whole time his argument has been "That's not what I said"... (although it sounded more like "...wait what?")

After several people have told you plainly that you are not understanding what the other people you are arguing with are saying to you, you could either take a step back and try to have people explain it to you so you could rejoin the argument, knowing what you and others are talking about... or you could keep arguing with yourself... and not add anything to the discussion except nonsense which isn't helping your side of the debate. And that's serious advice, I'm not taking another jab at you... you just really aren't helping yourself unless you actually know what people are talking about, and thusly making any sense yourself.

Lt Lathrop wrote:After several people

Who are these several people? I see two incorrect people, not several.

Lt Lathrop - how is "they could not have written the rule that way as it would have made no sense [in 4th]" the exact opposite of what I said? I'll give you a hint: it isn't.

I'll try to explain things slower for you:

- Gorka stated the obscured save could not have been written with the cover save specified as it would have made no sense.

- The only sensible conclusion from that statement is that Gorka means "at the time the codex was written" it would have made no sense as we were in 4th ed at the time. Agreed - it would have made no sense, and KFF would not have worked. Which is exactly what I have already said, and is essentia;lly Gorkas premise for dispoving my argument

- I then showed that that is a patently *false* assumption, as Ghaz has rules that did not work at all in 4th ed.

Do you understand now? Gorka made a statement to the effect that the rule could not have been written in a certain way "as they did not have a crystal ball" - except in the very same codex they DID write a rule that did not work in 4th thus disproving his statement.

THis makes his "disproving" of my "nonsense" argument ithat they should have specified the save, if GW really wanted it to be a 5+ (which as you will hopefully agree, having been shown the evidence of intention, they did NOT mean) utterly *wrong*

That is why I am arguiing, I suggest you sit down and actually read the arguments mroe thoroughly - btw do you have anything to show specific saves yet? Still waiting.

You're still not reading my argument correctly. I'm not arguing that they couldn't have written it in because it would make no sense in the book (aside from in the single line you quoted, which I still stand behind), I'm arguing it would have made no sense for them to be able write it in in the first place.

Feel free to argue that 'GW should have written in an extremely specific clause for a rule that was months away from being printed, but they didn't so my argument is stronger' was a sensible point. It wasn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is why I am arguiing, I suggest you sit down and actually read the arguments mroe thoroughly - btw do you have anything to show specific saves yet? Still waiting.

Just like I'm still waiting for you to show where I sided with the specified 5+ save. You seemed so happy to 'disprove my argument about the cover save being specified' at the time.
Or did you yourself not read the argument carefully before jumping on someone?

wow! really?! ... 4 pages

Gorkamorka - then why did they write Ghazghull so that his rule did not work in 4th ed?

It was as specific a change (S&P gaining charge bonus) as Obscured becoming a cover save.

Your premise is flawed. I understand your argument, its just a double standard - they COULD have written a rule stating the cover save as they DID write a rule giving Ghazzy an assault bonus he could never receive in 4th. Any argument saying that they therefore could not have written this specific cover save change in due to rules incompatibility OR that they did not know what the rules were going to be is therefore wrong.

As they did it for one rule then, if they intended the cover save to be 5+, they could have written th e rule to actually say that. Now we know they didnt intend for it to be a 5+, as a GW publication specifically points this out, but it doesn't alter that they set a precedent in the codex for writing rules that did not work at the time of publication. Almost as if they knew what was coming up in 5th ed (which wasnt "months away from being in print", btw)

If you could actually address the ghazzy point, where your argument falls down, it would be good.

Edit: just noticed that you both stand behind that they could not have written rules that were incompatible at the time of publication, yet say you werent saying that? I assume some form of dual personality there - you both agree with something and you don't, all at the same time.

Ok... I'm honestly surprised how you guys (looking at you with a squinty eye Gwar!) can't see how the rules are genuinely ambiguous here.

I think it really comes down to the fact that GW uses words like "specify" and "normal" without really giving them game-standard definitions, and they do it really frequently.

I also see a third valid way to interpret the KFF vs. Vehicle rules.

Be aware that this is treading into the Land of Not-Quite RAW. If you look at the Shokk Attack Gun rules, on a double 6 you'll find the rule "any model touched by the template is removed from the game. Vehicles suffer a penetrating hit." Now, the RAW of the two sentences pretty clearly invalidates the second sentence. Since vehicles are models, and not ephemeral dust clouds, or bondage-hamsters, or something else, they would also be removed from the table. However, if you play it in the most intuitive fashion, it also means that GW intended (oh noes, not that word!) the item to function differently against vehicles than against non-vehicle units.

So, if we apply the SAG as a precedent to the KFF, we can read the KFF rules as having entirely different effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units.

This would mean that any vehicle within 6" of the KFF would have non-specific obscured status, and thus a 4+ cover save, but it would also mean that Kan squadrons would need half their members within 6" in order to gain the cover save for the whole unit.

willydstyle wrote:Ok... I'm honestly surprised how you guys (looking at you with a squinty eye Gwar!) can't see how the rules are genuinely ambiguous here.

Hey, they are ambiguous in many many cases. I never said they weren't

This is NOT one of them however.

@Willydstyle:

All I have to say is, bondage-hamsters? Really? Do you have any idea how disturbing of an image you just created for me?

zatchmo wrote:@Willydstyle:

All I have to say is, bondage-hamsters? Really? Do you have any idea how disturbing of an image you just created for me?

Just imagine your avatar in leather, and rodent sized.

willydstyle wrote:I also see a third valid way to interpret the KFF vs. Vehicle rules.

Be aware that this is treading into the Land of Not-Quite RAW. If you look at the Shokk Attack Gun rules, on a double 6 you'll find the rule "any model touched by the template is removed from the game. Vehicles suffer a penetrating hit." Now, the RAW of the two sentences pretty clearly invalidates the second sentence. Since vehicles are models, and not ephemeral dust clouds, or bondage-hamsters, or something else, they would also be removed from the table. However, if you play it in the most intuitive fashion, it also means that GW intended (oh noes, not that word!) the item to function differently against vehicles than against non-vehicle units.

So, if we apply the SAG as a precedent to the KFF, we can read the KFF rules as having entirely different effects for vehicle and non-vehicle units.

This would mean that any vehicle within 6" of the KFF would have non-specific obscured status, and thus a 4+ cover save, but it would also mean that Kan squadrons would need half their members within 6" in order to gain the cover save for the whole unit.

The argument, unlike it was made to seem by a good chunk of the back and forth, was not really about the sentences being linked in the sense that they were specifically refering to each other. I see what you are saying, however, it wasn't that the sentence was so much needed to specifically cite the previous sentence to get a 5+ save out of it... but that the rule that grants a 4+ cover save from being obscured says you only get this save if the save is by wargear (which it is) and not specified otherwise (which is up for debate). Since the KFF grants a 5+ cover saves to units, I simply think that the cover save has been explicitly specified (as vehicles are units too), and thus the obscured generic 4+ save is overridden by the 5+.

I do, very much so, agree the RAW are ambiguous... which brings rise to the question, "Why hasn't it been FAQ'd?"

Because they released a document before 5th came out stating it specifically gave a 4+ save?

Because the sentence at no poiont gives you any hint that a save has been specified?

There were bigger things that should have been FAQ'd (like Ghazzies auto 6 actually working...) than this.

If they intend that document to be used currently, they need to make it much more obviously available, and at least as "official" as their FAQs are. I wasn't playing in 4th, and this is the first time I've seen it. FAQ would be better, of course. I'll be interested to see how INAT rules on the question (if they do).

They don't have to rule on it because it's fething simple.

Well apparently for some it isn't.

Nothing specifies a save, so you default to the 4+. Thats it.

Trust me, I've been over this debate many times, and know all sides of it in detail.

I agree that a reasonable person can deduct from the 5+ cover save for "units" that the obscured save could also be 5+.

I also agree that a reasonable person could say, "well, it doesn't specify the obscured save as 5+ so it is 4+."

I think the best way to play it is as the SAG double-6 precedent: different effects for different unit types.

I think the idea of taking a badly written rule, i.e. the SAG... and applying it to other badly written rules... saying that if this one was badly written this way... then this one must have also been badly written in the same way... is not the best way to take your rules.

Both rules should be FAQ'd... since RAW... the SAG should be vaporising vehicles. That's a problem... not a precedent... lol.

Especially since the rules for the SAG haven't been changed by the 4th to 5th ed switch. Thus, the rules were written... and meant what they said. So being able to say that they were intended to act a certain way... that vehicles take a pen hit, and infantry get removed... is easier. The KFF however was written when obscured was a separate effect not related to cover, then with the edition change... the mechanics changed. So there is no way to say what was intended when the rules were written, as the rules were written for something else, for a different time. Lol. I think the jump from saying that this rule was written like that rule, and both are broken... if the second one hadn't started off as not being broken... and worked fine as written. Originally there was no confusion about either wargear, and how they were supposed to be played.

They definitely knew the big rules changes that were coming up - else Ghaz wouldnt have had the rules he did, and they were very careful to word the Waaagh move to not refer to fleet moves in the shooting phase.

The rules are seperate enough that it takes a very...odd reading to get 5+.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They definitely knew the big rules changes that were coming up - else Ghaz wouldnt have had the rules he did, and they were very careful to word the Waaagh move to not refer to fleet moves in the shooting phase.

The rules are seperate enough that it takes a very...odd reading to get 5+.

I am not looking to get into another discussion with you (as we seem to not get anywhere), but simply point out the humor in the idea that GW could see into the future to read the rules they were going to write... and that had they had the ability to see into the future... that they would actually take the time to be very careful to word their rules for any reason, as they seem unable to word a rule that works with itself, (like with the SAG example), let alone with other rules that haven't been written yet. Lol.

Well, either they knew the changes that were coming in the rulebook that was in development when the Ork Codex was written (5th ed was finished entirtely very early 2008) as they wrote Ghazghull a rule that only worked in 5th ed, or else they intentionally wrote a rule for Ghaz that, as far as they knew, would never work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, either they knew the changes that were coming in the rulebook that was in development when the Ork Codex was written (5th ed was finished entirtely very early 2008) as they wrote Ghazghull a rule that only worked in 5th ed, or else they intentionally wrote a rule for Ghaz that, as far as they knew, would never work.

Knowing GW, the 2nd option is not actually an impossibility.

This argument is about the funniest thing I have ever read on Dakka.

Three or four people are all (figuratively) screaming at each other, none of them are listening to what anyone else is saying. . . and Gwar is just standing off to the side, shaking his head in disbelief.

Oh we've gotten past the screaming, much more sensible incredulity at GW now

It isn't an impossibility, but its a bit of a fluke otherwise....

BeRzErKeR wrote:This argument is about the funniest thing I have ever read on Dakka.

Three or four people are all (figuratively) screaming at each other, none of them are listening to what anyone else is saying. . . and Gwar is just standing off to the side, shaking his head in disbelief.

Not entirely convinced Gwar! is as much of an impartial, or innocent, bystander as you think. Lol.
Also try not to confuse, disagreeing with each other... as not listening. It's just that if you shout louder it helps people understand better.

I don't see why it should give a better save to vehicles than infantry, but there you go.

This being said, I do like the "4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable" suggestion that was made a few pages ago. That works for me and it is probably how I would play it.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:I don't see why it should give a better save to vehicles than infantry, but there you go.

This being said, I do like the "4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable" suggestion that was made a few pages ago. That works for me and it is probably how I would play it.

DoW

You started off good... as it would be pretty weird for vehicles to get a different better save than infantry. But frankly, the Invul save was quite possibly the worst statement/suggestion/interpretation that's been made so far. Including Nosferatu's posts. By no manner could you possibly read that the 5+ cover save granted by the KFF would be invul... nor could you possibly read that obscured, which gives cover saves, would give a invul save.

If you are saying that you want to house rule it that way... by all means... but I hope you aren't saying that's what you think the RAW are.

Lt Lathrop wrote:But frankly, the Invul save was quite possibly the worst statement/suggestion/interpretation that's been made so far. Including Nosferatu's posts.

Was that really necessary? Given that my posts were exactly following what GW specifically told us the save given by KFF is. RAW and RAI agree with me, as does the majority of posters and players (certainly in UK GT)

My posts were a lot better thought out than yours, where you tried to pretend I hadn't posted the rules...and I then proceeded to reduce your argumentt o what it was: I don't think it should work. The weakest argument possible.

I'd suggest laying off the personal attacks.

I think we're about done here. Nobody appears to be adding anything useful, so I'm going to lock the thread before it spirals any further.